hoofd-bron en origineel:
The Iron catastrophe of earth
The Iron catastrophe is stated as an event that happened to Earth. It rarely seems to be mentioned it is not a fact. It is an amazing idea yet people seem to accept it as fact without thinking about what it means.

Watch this History Channel clip from the "Universe" series for an explanation of the Earths Iron catastrophe

The only reason that the Earth has to have a molten iron core is an old idea and is due to our Magnetosphere. In the old days when Geology was starting it was assumed that the Earth and all planets were just a seperate non connected rock in the Solar System and Universe. Therefore, our magnetic field had to be producded by something inside the Earth. Iron.

The Earth, planets and our star appear to be connected, with Flux Transfer Events and Solar Tornadoes as a couple of examples. It could now be considered that the Earths magnetosphere might be produced by something other than a molten iron core. The Earth could be a coil in an Electric Universe.

The idea of a molten metal core is very strange when you actually think about it logically but the idea for it comes from the ideas of its time (that the Earth was a seperate body in the Solar System). If this "seperate" idea is wrong then is the molten metal core wrong? What else based on these early ideas is also wrong?

The Earths Iron Catastrophe, magnetosphere, our atmosphere, life, basically everything on Earth since the moment of the Iron Catastrophe depends on many theories, none are facts:

The Big Bang
Formation of our Solar System, Sun, asteroids, Earth
The heating or hot Earth after its formation or asteroids hitting the Earth triggering/causing this
Heavy metals on the Earths surface
Planetary differentiation
Chemical differentiation

Geogate - geology is built up layer upon layer - what if the wrong foundations were built?
Geology is built up on the ideas and theories that have been thought up / worked out / discovered before. New Geology ideas/theories are written/investigated/interpreted with respect to the previous and older ideaas/knowledge. What if the original ideas are wrong? There are a lot of changes of geology theories/facts but are all the spin-off ideas also changed? Once you have to many levels of ideas can you change all of the previous ideas to reflect corrections or errors?

Does this show that 1a2, 1a or 1 is incorrect or needs changing? Do they change all works of the previous levels? Do they continue all the other spin offs as normal with only a slight change to 1a2?

Sir Charles Lyell was one of the founders of modern geology ideas and studies. His ideas/theories are therefore one of the original ideas of Geology, one of the foundations that spin off ideas/theories are based upon.
Quote
Sir Charles Lyell Scottish geologist largely responsible for the general acceptance of the view that all features of the Earth’s surface are produced by physical, chemical, and biological processes through long periods of geological time. The concept was called uniformitarianism (initially set forth by James Hutton). Lyell’s achievements laid the foundations for evolutionary biology as well as for an understanding of the Earth’s development.
Sir Charles Lyell - britannica .com

Perhaps his most famous book was his first book, The Principles of Geology, which he called "An Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface by Reference to Causes now in Operation". The basic idea of Sir Charles Lyell was "Uniformitarian" - that in Geology "the present is the key to the past". Uniformitarianism states and believes that the only forces that have geologically changed the Earth in the past are the forces that we can see in action today.

But Catastrophe's do seem to have affected the Earth and also the Earths climate seems to have undergone many, many changes and reversals. The only thing constant about the Earth is that it is not constant.

Modern Geology may have adapted/changed Lyell's ideas but the basics not just remain they have influenced and created the geological ideas/theories since he first published them. Have all these ideas been changed. Is even this basic idea correct when you consider the huge amout of evidence for multiple Catastrophes and changes to Planet Earth?

quote:
The whole idea of volcanos been from the molten core( where's the iron?)
Volcano's i9mho are local resistance points where huge electrical discharges occur.
Earth quake are the opposite where huge inputs implode into the earth, the resultant ripple outwards is of half of the normal duality that enables created mass to remember what it is, thus areas litterally return to no-thing, I sat through an earth quake observing the picture in My view going to jello, and trying to dowse the flows which almost pulled the rods out of my hands.
how many people actually try and observe such an event?
The earths crust may be nothing but 30 miles thick, then various layers with an anode core to the sun.

The Earth is connected to the sun in many ways including Flux Transfer Events ("magnetic" portals and 2 types of them!) and Space Tornadoes (both variations of Birkeland Currents?). After an Earthquake or another natural event is there a surge between the Earth/Sun or an increase? If we measured for this and found it out would this prove that it is an Electric Universe as there is no explanation for it in a gravityVerse?

kevin, do you think a plasma discharge at the center of the earth, similar to the Sun? This would explain the "surprising" heat as we get further down, or, is this heat coming from an exchange/resistance in the rock layers or where the rock meets the inner plasma?

I equate all things with a reference to what I detect.
If I describe a typical point, a finite point where the geometry involved begins to create polygons around that point, but the complications are nested and overlapping, multiple smaller points around the central point are created, and every point is unique, but similer as is fingerprints or DNA.

The whole system repeats and though supported on this lattice grid, it provides the basis for fractal flows to follow pathways of least resistance, thus they act under attraction as there is this duality of flows.
I therefore have a sort of blue print embedded in My head from following all of this so carefully.
This leads to thinking out the consequences spherically, with the patterns thus occuring in all directions at once, thus the flows will vortex in/out to all depths .
Every single finite point in this geometry produces a dominant cross feature, it occurs due to the fibonacci sequencing that concentrates into a tighter arrangement of the lattice thus the flows upon entering into each and every point concentrate into this cross feature, but also circulate around all of the polygons and flow off each polygon .
The cross is in fact in simplicity merely two lines crossing, not four, so in that simplistic way imagine a flow travelling towards the centre point, it either flows straight through or goes left or right.
but it is not that simple, each point has multiple lines with individual flows along them.
these flows vary and reverse, all relative in particuler to where the sun/moon are, but all the other planets and stars are involved.
thus the whole system litterally fluxs relative to positionings of all other planets etc.

If You can think that out and position yourself as an observer at any point on any of the planets and stars, them imagine the resistance encountered by the flows relative to the geometry they encounter with the variables of flow strengths relative to the resistance they encounter with all the other planets add infirnitum.

it's mind blowing, but simple.
I isolate and compare back to the blue print, it's a little like having a map.

If you then think of the sun as a huge resistance to the free flow of galactic flows in all directions at once but with this dominant cross feature where a main flow direction is encountered by the sun.
The earth is a by product of the geometry of the sun, it is geometrically positioned, as is all the other planets, their moons then been geometrically positined about them.
The surges will occur in a cyclic manner with multiple points about the spherical surfaqce acting as vortex input and output locations.
The geometry will have mainframe alignments(Giza /hawaii)
That geometry will extend both inwards and outwards into and around the planet, the giza pyramid will be built to mirror that geometry, the pinacle( missing0 point of the pyramid been a vortex meeting point.
kevin

Humans knowledge of the Earths structure is interpreted from physical experimental data and theories based upon older theories based upon ideas. The newest theories change and the old theories are updated or abandoned but not every single idea/theory from the now wrong/corrected original ideas is changed.

What geologists state is the inner structure of the Earth comes mainly from siesmic waves. Our other knowledge of the crust is from what we can see or drill down to and there have only been a few superdeep boreholes drilled into the Earths continental and oceanic crust. The 2 main superdeep boreholes, the Russian Kola Superdeep Borehole and the German KTB, only seemed to prove that our modelling was very wrong. Virtually nothing discovered was predicted and there was many surprises.

A good theory predicts and when your predictions are totally wrong do you modify your old theory to now fit, so your modified geology now "works" or do you accept the facts that the Earth is telling you and look for a new theory?

Geology is based on foundations of successive layers of knowledge/theories, each one usually built upon the last ones. If the original ideas/theories are proved to be wrong then does this have a multiplier effect?

Earth structure | The Oxford Companion to the Earth

The interior of the Earth is inaccessible: all that we know about it has had to be deduced from our knowledge of the rocks accessible to us and from the shape and physical properties of the Earth as a whole, and from the results of geophysical and geochemical experiment.

Our desire to understand the Earth goes far back into history, to the Hebrews, the Ancient Greeks, and the Chinese, but our understanding of the internal structure of the Earth really starts with the Victorian physicists (e.g. Rayleigh and Rutherford) and then Sir Harold Jeffreys with his classic book The Earth, first published in 1924, who laid the foundations for modern geoscience. With the very rapid advances in equipment, and particularly in computer technology, our knowledge of the details of the fine structure and workings of the Earth's interior has improved greatly since the 1980s.

The Earth is, in the broadest sense, a series of concentric spherical shells, each shell having distinct physical or chemical properties. The outermost, and thinnest, shell is the crust. Then, descending into the interior, the next shell is the mantle, which extends to a depth of 2891 km. This is subdivided into two: the upper mantle and the lower mantle. Finally at the centre of the Earth is the core. This also is subdivided into two: the outer core and, the innermost sphere, the inner core.

The rocks exposed at the surface of the Earth are part of the crust. The crust is a thin layer of silica-rich rocks which have been derived from the underlying mantle by melting and subsequent metamorphic or erosional processes, or, in places, both.

...Models of ‘crustal growth rate’ (which are based on isotopic ratios) indicate that the continental crust formed gradually through much of the Archaean with an increased growth rate in the late Archaean, since when there has been a gradual increase. Over 70 per cent of the present surficial area of the continents was formed more than 450 Ma ago. The continual processes of erosion and deposition of sediments mean that a good deal of ‘recycling’ takes place in crustal rocks...

..In contrast to the continental crust, the oceanic crust is young, thin, and chemically magnesium-rich. All the oceanic crust has been formed since the Jurassic, and only fragments of mid-Jurassic crust remain. The average thickness of the oceanic crust is 7 km. Oceanic crust is formed as a result of decompression melting in the mantle at shallow depths beneath the mid-ocean ridges. As a result, the oceanic crust is basaltic and is uniform in composition.

...The uppermost parts of the crust have been sampled directly by drilling. The international Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), a major co-operative programme of drilling in oceanic regions, has provided detailed information on the fine structure of the oceanic crust and has answered many questions about the details of the formation of oceanic regions. On the continents there are just two deep boreholes that penetrate to mid-crustal levels: one in Germany (KTB) and the other on the Kola peninsula in Russia. Despite the scarcity of drill information, a variety of geophysical techniques are used to great advantage to determine the gross overall structure of the continental crust in different tectonic regions, as well as some of its fine structure. Gravity surveys enable models of possible underlying density structures to be established; and as the density of rocks is broadly dependent upon their composition, gravity measurements can be used to infer lithology. Electrical and magnetic surveys enable models of the electrical and magnetic properties of the crust and uppermost mantle to be determined. Mineral composition, porosity, and permeability are additional factors controlling the electrical conductivity and magnetic susceptibility of rocks. However, seismic methods provide the most detailed and unique images of the structure of the crust (both continental and oceanic)...

The results of the 2 superdeep boreholes are not mentioned above. Harold Jeffreys, one of the fathers of seismic geology who co-authored the JB tables, seems to have suggested or shown that there was a transition zone below the earths surface. Before the 2 superdeep boreholes were even started the land below the Earth at these points would have had a lot of seismic mapping so geologists knew what was there and so they could plan how to drill deep into the Earth. The results were unexpected and not just from a rock/mineral point of view.

In 1926, British geophysicist Harold Jeffreys proposed that this transition zone within the crust, identifiable on seismic records around most of the world as a "jump" in seismic velocity, could be attributed to a change in rock type from granite to a denser "basement" of basalt (basalts can be seen at the surface when they emerge as lava flows). For years, this concept has served well as a working hypothesis for earth scientists.

The Kola well has now penetrated about halfway through the crust of the Baltic continental shield, exposing rocks 2.7 billion years old at the bottom (for comparison, the Vishnu schist at the bottom of the Grand Canyon dates to about 2 billion years--the earth itself is about 4.6 billion years old). To scientists, one of the more fascinating findings to emerge from this well is that the change in seismic velocities was not found at a boundary marking Jeffreys' hypothetical transition from granite to basalt; it was at the bottom of a layer of metamorphic rock (rock which has been intensively reworked by heat and pressure) that extended from about 3 to about 6 miles beneath the surface. This rock had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, and free water should not be found at these depths!

This could only mean that water which had originally been a part of the chemical composition of the rock minerals themselves (as contrasted with ground water) had been forced out of the crystals and prevented from rising by an overlying cap of impermeable rock. This has never been observed anywhere else.

In addition to the important bearing that this discovery has on the general geophysical sciences, there is a potential economic impact. This water (variously known as "water of crystallization", "primary" water, or "juvenile" water) which originates as an integral part of the rock crystals is very highly mineralized, and is a primary concentrating agent for most ore deposits.

Water at these depths was very surprising and zero prediction of it. The Russian Kola Superdeep Borehole also discovered fossils at over 20,000 feet that were not damaged by processes that were predicted to created rock at this depth. How could fossils remain intact at such a depth in the Earths Crust? One idea in an Electric Universe is that the material of the Earth could be basically electrically plated onto the shell of the earth. This may help to explain why the deepest fossils ever found could be there.

The other hole drilled into the Earths Crust was the KTB superdeep borehole (Kontinentales Tiefbohrprogramm de Bundesreplik Deutschland or German Continental Deep Drilling Program). The results found here were even more surprising. Firstly there is much more available data from the superdeep drilling and also it was carried out by Germans so you would expect everything to have been planned and modelled correctly. They also had reviewed the Russians attempt and results.

Suprises - Some Welcome, Some Not
...At a depth of about 7000 m (22,966 ft) they had expected to drill through the boundary between two tectonic plates that collided 320 millions years ago, forming the Eurasion plate. However, this boundary was never crossed, and the geologists have had to redraw most of the subsurface picture.
Other unexpected results include core and log evidence for a network of conductive pathways through highly resistive rock, and in rock devoid of matric porosity, an ample supply of water.
(page 16) The KTB Borehole - Germany's Superdeep Telescope into the Earth's Crust

Did they not do any siesmic mapping before hand? Was their model of geology of the area completely wrong? Perhaps the biggest clue that geology may not be correct is the fact that they found water when they expected to find zero water. So, having used a centaury of geology/science and getting it about as wrong as you could would you modify your old model that predict nothing, use that to predict more stuff and spend a lot more money researching, teaching, paying pensions or would you consider that perhaps the foundations of geology were built on sand and not rock? Although your theories had told you that it was rock and not sand.

The structure of the inner Earth and its Core - The mantle and deep interior

The controlled-source seismic methods used to determine crustal and shallow mantle structures are not suitable for determining seismic velocities deep within the Earth. Instead, methods utilizing earthquakes as the energy source and networks of seismic recording stations are used to calculate the travel times of seismic waves. These travel times are then used to calculate the variation of seismic velocities with depth in the Earth. Seismic velocities in the mantle are also determined by using the dispersion of surface waves (i.e. the change in the character of the wave with increasing distance, which is due to the fact that waves of different frequency travel with different velocities).

The Earth can also be classified by the way in which heat is transferred through it. The lithospheric plates are the Earth's outermost near-rigid, cool ‘skin’. These are the plates that move about on the Earth's surface and along whose edges much of the seismicity and volcanism occur. Conduction is the main mechanism of heat transfer through the lithosphere. As the plates are about 100 km thick, the lithosphere comprises both the crust and the uppermost part of the mantle. The mantle beneath the lithosphere is hotter and, although behaving as a solid on a short timescale, is able to flow on a geological timescale. This means that convection is the mechanism for heat transfer through the sub-lithospheric mantle. There has been considerable scientific debates as to whether or not the upper and lower mantle convect as two separate systems.

The Superdeep boreholes show that the Earth is much hotter the further we go down than predicted. They also show that there is a lot more electricity and natural electrical "circuit" material than we predicted. The Earth is electric. Its atmosphere is hugely electric and everything we seem to discover is either magnetic (therefore electric) or pure electric. The Earth has huge electrical currents flowing through it (Telluric Currents) and Volcanoes/Earthquakes will eventually be discovered as massive electrical events.

The earth is also made up of fine layers and combined with the conductive / semi-conductive alternating nature of these layers could they act as parts in a natural electrical circuit? Either in the macro or micro? For example resistors heat up when electricity flows through them or some electric components/devices convert electricity into heat as part of the process of transforming the energy into another type.

The structure of the inner Earth and its Core - the inner and outer Core

Earth structure | The Oxford Companion to the Earth

The core was discovered by R. D. Oldham in 1906 and was accurately delineated as being at 2900 km depth by Beno Gutenberg in 1912. The core–mantle boundary, or CMB, is also known as the Gutenberg discontinuity. The core is physically and chemically distinct from the mantle. In composition it is predominantly iron with small amounts of other elements. Work on tides enabled Sir Harold Jeffreys to establish in 1926 that the outer core must be fluid. A decade later, in 1936, Inge Lehmann (1888–1993) was able to show that there was a solid inner core at the very centre of the Earth. She did this by using seismic energy from an earthquake in New Zealand that was recorded in Europe after having passed through the centre of the Earth. The outer core–inner core boundary is called the Lehmann discontinuity in her honour...

...The composition of the core is hard to verify: there are no core samples to be studied. Instead we have to rely on ingenuity and analogue. The relative abundances of elements in the Sun and in meteorites indicate that the core should be predominantly iron, and in bulk could approximate to Fe2O with a small proportion of nickel. The seismic velocity and density structure, together with experiments conducted in the laboratory at high pressure and temperature, imply that the inner core may be almost pure iron. The outer core is an iron alloy with about 10 per cent of lighter elements, the most likely candidates being oxygen, sulphur, nickel, and silicon. Experiments have shown that liquid iron and iron alloys react strongly with solid iron and magnesium silicates. The seismic complexity of the CMB can thus be explained in terms of the chemical reactions taking place there. This may be the most chemically active part of the planet.

That the outer core is liquid and the inner core solid is consistent with all seismological observations as well as studies on tides and the Earth's rotation, which both require a liquid core. The liquid outer core is the source of the Earth's magnetic field. It acts as a giant spherical dynamo, in which less dense rising convection currents of liquid iron also carry electric currents. The interaction of these electric currents with the Earth's magnetic field then results in an enhancement of that magnetic field. This is called a self-exciting dynamo, and can occur in the Earth only because the outer core is liquid, convecting, and, being iron-rich, conducts electricity.

The inner and out Core of the Earth is worked out by the interpretation of siesmic evidence, what we see in the Sun and Asteroids and because the Earth has a magnetosphere (magnetic field). But the idea that we have an iron core is due to the old idea that the Earth is not connected to the Sun, other planets or the Universe in any way other than gravity. Modern evidence shows that we are connected to the Sun and the Universe electrically/magnetically. So the old idea of the iron core has to change and this means changing the ideas based on it...

This does not just mean the physical structure of Earth having to be modified and all our geological theories but also the other planets. Perhaps also how the Sun was formed, the Solar System, Galaxies, the Universe and then the Big Bang?

If the Earths Core is different to what has been theorised from old models/ideas then what of the other planets in our Solar System? What about other things about them, especially their magnetospheres and how they are produced?

Most of what is known about the internal structure of Mercury comes from data acquired by the Mariner 10 spacecraft that flew past the planet in 1973 and 1974. Mercury is about a third of the size of Earth, yet its density is comparable to that of Earth. This indicates that Mercury has a large core roughly the size of Earth's moon or about 75% of the planet's radius. The core is likely composed of 60 to 70% iron by mass. Mariner 10's measurements of the planet reveals a dipolar magnetic field possibly produced by a partially molten core. A solid rocky mantle surrounds the core with a thin crust of about 100 kilometers.

A NASA spacecraft gliding over the surface of Mercury has revealed that the planet's atmosphere, the interaction of its surrounding magnetic field with the solar wind, and its geological past display greater levels of activity than scientists first suspected...

"This second Mercury flyby provided a number of new findings," said Sean Solomon, the probe's principal investigator from the Carnegie Institution of Washington. "One of the biggest surprises was how strongly the dynamics of the planet's magnetic field–solar wind interaction changed from what we saw during the first Mercury flyby in January 2008...

Jupiter is a gas giant yet it has the strongest and largest of the Solar Systems magnetospheres. Jupiters magnetosphere is not caused by an iron core but by other factors. But it does have a core. Allegedly.

Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system with a radius of over 70 000 km. It rotates most rapidly of all the planets with a period of only 9 h 55 min 29.7 s. It also has the largest magnetic moment (computed as the product of the equatorial surface field and the cube of the planetary radius). Consequently it also has the largest magnetosphere in the solar system, large enough to encompass easily the Sun and the visible corona. If the Jovian magnetosphere were visible from Earth, it would be bigger than the Moon in the night sky. Jupiter is also a powerful emitter of radio waves. Its giant magnetosphere acts both as a trap and an accelerator of energetic charged particles. The most energetic of the trapped electrons radiate at radio frequencies, and it was the radio frequency radiation that led in 1955 to the discovery that Jupiter had a magnetic field (Burke and Franklin, 1955). Jupiter's magnetosphere differs importantly from the Earth's magnetosphere in that its energy is predominantly derived from sources internal to the magnetosphere rather than through its interaction with the solar wind.

Planet and Interior

Jupiter's interior is very different from the interiors of the terrestrial planets and may even have important differences from the interior of Saturn because of its much greater mass. The planet consists mainly of hydrogen and helium. The enormous gravitational force exerted by the planet compresses the helium and hydrogen into the liquid state and converts the hydrogen to an electrically conducting metal at depths below about 0.75 Jovian radii (Rj). It is within this electrically conducting metallic hydrogen fluid that the Jovian dynamo is generated. The energy for the dynamo consists in part of primordial heat from the formation of the planet and in part the release of gravitational energy of denser material, drops of liquid helium, settling to the center of the planet. This process is analogous to the terrestrial dynamo power source, which is believed to be the solidification of the inner core.

Even before the first probes to Jupiter much was known about the Jovian magnetic field from radio measurements. The moment was correctly estimated within a factor of two and the 10o tilt of the dipole moment correctly deduced...data revealed a magnetic field rich in multiple harmonics (in comparison to that of the Earth), presumably because the Jovian dynamo source region is closer to the surface of the planet....

Magnetosphere

The immense size of the Jovian magnetosphere is a result of the combination of three factors: (1) the strength of the planetary magnetic field, (2) the low density of the solar wind at 5.2 AU, and (3) the rapid rotation of the planet...The velocities associated with this process combined with the high mass loss rate from To are sufficient to distort the magnetic field of Jupiter into a disk, or magnetodisk. The centrifugal force associated with this magnetodisk stretches the magnetosphere in all directions and increases the forward radius of the magnetosphere to close to 100 Jovian radii at times. Since a Jovian radius is more than ten Earth radii, the linear dimension of the Jovian magnetosphere is about 100 times that of the Earth and its volume a million times bigger...

...As with other magnetospheres, both intrinsic to the planet and induced by the solar wind interaction, Jupiter has a magnetic tail extending in the antisolar direction. In concert with vast size in the forward direction, the magnetotail is of enormous dimensions in the antisolar direction, stretching (at least) all the way to Saturn's orbit, over 5 AU downstream.

The Jovian magnetosphere is very dynamic. The magnetodisk configuration is much more sensitive to the variations in the solar wind pressure than other magnetospheres, and thus the magnetosphere is constantly in motion. ...Thus the emission of radio waves is not constant but varies with time...

Note that before 1955 no standard theory had predicted Jupiter having a magentosphere. After all it is just a Gas Giant and you need an iron core to create a magnetosphere. That is why the earth has one. So all models/ideas based on the theory that produce "Jupiter = no magnetosphere" had to be and where changed, including all the ideas/theories that were built on ....

The newly discovered core at the center of the Earth has a different polarity than its surrounding core, represented by the purple lines. Lachina Publishing Services

Though the seismic waves from earthquakes are best known for their destructive capabilities, in the hands of geologists, they can be powerful tools of discovery. A research team at the University of Illinois has just used the rumbles from quakes to more closely examine the inner core of our planet, and what they found there was quite a surprise. It seems there's another core inside the inner core that measures about half its diameter.

What demarcates this "inner-inner core" is that the iron crystals it contains are oriented on an east-west axis, unlike the iron crystals in the "outer-inner core" which organize along a north-south axis.

"The fact that we have two regions that are distinctly different may tell us something about how the inner core has been evolving," Xiaodong Song, a professor of geology at UI who worked on the project with visiting postdoctoral researcher Tao Wang, said in a University of Illinois report about the findings. "For example, over the history of the Earth, the inner core might have had a very dramatic change in its deformation regime. It might hold the key to how the planet has evolved."

While multiple components of the inner core have been suggested before, this is the first time the difference in polarity has been noted. "Indeed, the layering of the inner core has been suggested more than 10 years ago, at shallow depths of the inner core and at deeper parts of the inner core as well," Song told Crave. "Everyone assumed before the crystal alignment was north-south. But here we found alignment in the inner-inner core to be nearly east-west."

If all this inner and inner-inner talk sounds confusing, perhaps a quick geology refresher is in order. The Earth consists of three layers: the crust where we live; the mantle, a layer of scalding-hot liquid rock; and the core. The core consists of a liquid outer core containing mainly nickel and iron and a solid inner core made up mostly of iron. Even though the inner core is even hotter than its surroundings, the intense pressure at the Earth's center means the inner core is unable to melt and remains solid, according to a National Geographic entry about the topic.

And now we can add another layer to our Earth's composition: the inner-inner core, which is still mostly solid iron, but has a different polarity than the substance surrounding it.

In "unearthing" the inner-inner core, the research team relied on seismic sensors that pick up the waves that penetrate the planet after an earthquake hits, known as the quake's coda. "The earthquake is like a hammer striking a bell; much like a listener hears the clear tone that resonates after the bell strike, seismic sensors collect a coherent signal in the earthquake's coda," the report says.

"It turns out the coherent signal enhanced by the technology is clearer than the ring itself," said Song. "The basic idea of the method has been around for a while, and people have used it for other kinds of studies near the surface. But we are looking all the way through the center of the Earth."

The researchers' findings were published in the journal Nature on Monday.

Humans knowledge of the Earths structure is interpreted from physical experimental data and theories based upon older theories based upon ideas. The newest theories change and the old theories are updated or abandoned but not every single idea/theory from the now wrong/corrected original ideas is changed.

What geologists state is the inner structure of the Earth comes mainly from siesmic waves. Our other knowledge of the crust is from what we can see or drill down to and there have only been a few superdeep boreholes drilled into the Earths continental and oceanic crust. The 2 main superdeep boreholes, the Russian Kola Superdeep Borehole and the German KTB, only seemed to prove that our modelling was very wrong. Virtually nothing discovered was predicted and there was many surprises.

A good theory predicts and when your predictions are totally wrong do you modify your old theory to now fit, so your modified geology now "works" or do you accept the facts that the Earth is telling you and look for a new theory?

Geology is based on foundations of successive layers of knowledge/theories, each one usually built upon the last ones. If the original ideas/theories are proved to be wrong then does this have a multiplier effect?

Earth structure | The Oxford Companion to the Earth

The interior of the Earth is inaccessible: all that we know about it has had to be deduced from our knowledge of the rocks accessible to us and from the shape and physical properties of the Earth as a whole, and from the results of geophysical and geochemical experiment.

Our desire to understand the Earth goes far back into history, to the Hebrews, the Ancient Greeks, and the Chinese, but our understanding of the internal structure of the Earth really starts with the Victorian physicists (e.g. Rayleigh and Rutherford) and then Sir Harold Jeffreys with his classic book The Earth, first published in 1924, who laid the foundations for modern geoscience. With the very rapid advances in equipment, and particularly in computer technology, our knowledge of the details of the fine structure and workings of the Earth's interior has improved greatly since the 1980s.

The Earth is, in the broadest sense, a series of concentric spherical shells, each shell having distinct physical or chemical properties. The outermost, and thinnest, shell is the crust. Then, descending into the interior, the next shell is the mantle, which extends to a depth of 2891 km. This is subdivided into two: the upper mantle and the lower mantle. Finally at the centre of the Earth is the core. This also is subdivided into two: the outer core and, the innermost sphere, the inner core.

The rocks exposed at the surface of the Earth are part of the crust. The crust is a thin layer of silica-rich rocks which have been derived from the underlying mantle by melting and subsequent metamorphic or erosional processes, or, in places, both.

...Models of ‘crustal growth rate’ (which are based on isotopic ratios) indicate that the continental crust formed gradually through much of the Archaean with an increased growth rate in the late Archaean, since when there has been a gradual increase. Over 70 per cent of the present surficial area of the continents was formed more than 450 Ma ago. The continual processes of erosion and deposition of sediments mean that a good deal of ‘recycling’ takes place in crustal rocks...

..In contrast to the continental crust, the oceanic crust is young, thin, and chemically magnesium-rich. All the oceanic crust has been formed since the Jurassic, and only fragments of mid-Jurassic crust remain. The average thickness of the oceanic crust is 7 km. Oceanic crust is formed as a result of decompression melting in the mantle at shallow depths beneath the mid-ocean ridges. As a result, the oceanic crust is basaltic and is uniform in composition.

...The uppermost parts of the crust have been sampled directly by drilling. The international Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), a major co-operative programme of drilling in oceanic regions, has provided detailed information on the fine structure of the oceanic crust and has answered many questions about the details of the formation of oceanic regions. On the continents there are just two deep boreholes that penetrate to mid-crustal levels: one in Germany (KTB) and the other on the Kola peninsula in Russia. Despite the scarcity of drill information, a variety of geophysical techniques are used to great advantage to determine the gross overall structure of the continental crust in different tectonic regions, as well as some of its fine structure. Gravity surveys enable models of possible underlying density structures to be established; and as the density of rocks is broadly dependent upon their composition, gravity measurements can be used to infer lithology. Electrical and magnetic surveys enable models of the electrical and magnetic properties of the crust and uppermost mantle to be determined. Mineral composition, porosity, and permeability are additional factors controlling the electrical conductivity and magnetic susceptibility of rocks. However, seismic methods provide the most detailed and unique images of the structure of the crust (both continental and oceanic)...

The results of the 2 superdeep boreholes are not mentioned above. Harold Jeffreys, one of the fathers of seismic geology who co-authored the JB tables, seems to have suggested or shown that there was a transition zone below the earths surface. Before the 2 superdeep boreholes were even started the land below the Earth at these points would have had a lot of seismic mapping so geologists knew what was there and so they could plan how to drill deep into the Earth. The results were unexpected and not just from a rock/mineral point of view.

In 1926, British geophysicist Harold Jeffreys proposed that this transition zone within the crust, identifiable on seismic records around most of the world as a "jump" in seismic velocity, could be attributed to a change in rock type from granite to a denser "basement" of basalt (basalts can be seen at the surface when they emerge as lava flows). For years, this concept has served well as a working hypothesis for earth scientists.

The Kola well has now penetrated about halfway through the crust of the Baltic continental shield, exposing rocks 2.7 billion years old at the bottom (for comparison, the Vishnu schist at the bottom of the Grand Canyon dates to about 2 billion years--the earth itself is about 4.6 billion years old). To scientists, one of the more fascinating findings to emerge from this well is that the change in seismic velocities was not found at a boundary marking Jeffreys' hypothetical transition from granite to basalt; it was at the bottom of a layer of metamorphic rock (rock which has been intensively reworked by heat and pressure) that extended from about 3 to about 6 miles beneath the surface. This rock had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, and free water should not be found at these depths!

This could only mean that water which had originally been a part of the chemical composition of the rock minerals themselves (as contrasted with ground water) had been forced out of the crystals and prevented from rising by an overlying cap of impermeable rock. This has never been observed anywhere else.

In addition to the important bearing that this discovery has on the general geophysical sciences, there is a potential economic impact. This water (variously known as "water of crystallization", "primary" water, or "juvenile" water) which originates as an integral part of the rock crystals is very highly mineralized, and is a primary concentrating agent for most ore deposits.

Water at these depths was very surprising and zero prediction of it. The Russian Kola Superdeep Borehole also discovered fossils at over 20,000 feet that were not damaged by processes that were predicted to created rock at this depth. How could fossils remain intact at such a depth in the Earths Crust? One idea in an Electric Universe is that the material of the Earth could be basically electrically plated onto the shell of the earth. This may help to explain why the deepest fossils ever found could be there.

A recent discovery beneath the 12-kilometer deep Kola Borehole was said to have given evidence to "The Great Flood" that happened during the biblical time of Noah
Express UK http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/733 ... eory-of-12 reports that Russian scientists unearthed the world's deepest hole in Murmansk Oblast, http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/kola ... p-borehole
Russia, and discovered a surprising theory. While they were expecting to find solid, dry rocky layers underneath the Kola Superdeep Borehole, the geological experts were stunned to see huge amount of water, suggesting that the composition of the Earth is not just limited to crust, mantle and core.

The news outlet added that the group, Plano Existential, that published a video of the unearthing claimed that this was where the floodwater described in the Book of Genesis receded. As recorded in the Bible, the floodwater covered all the earth, rising to more than 22 feet above the highest mountain peaks due to non-stop rain. The floodwater then began to recede after 150 days of what was believed to be God's punishment.

"Rock shouldn't be porous but there's water there, supporting the claim that there was a great flood covering the entire earth," the video narrator commented.

This claim of biblical evidence just occurred weeks after the unsealing of the tomb of Jesus Christ beneath the 18th Century Edicule in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem's Old City.

According to the National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016 ... sepulchre/
the researchers were amazed to discover that the burial bed, where the body of who Christians believe to be the Redeemer of their sins resurrected, remained intact through time since his death in A.D. 33. The group was also able to confirm that the cave wall of Christ's tomb was made up of limestone. This revelation astounded archeologists considering the deconstruction, reconstruction and damage of the surrounding of the church.

"All of this is perfectly consistent with what we know about how wealthy Jews disposed of their dead in the time of Jesus," said archaeologist and National Geographic grantee Jodi Magness. "This does not, of course, prove that the event was historical. But what it does suggest is that whatever the sources were for the gospel accounts, they were familiar with this tradition and these burial customs."